Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Analysis for Independent Claims 1 and 16:
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the Office is charged with determining whether the scope of the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1).
If the claim falls within one of the statutory categories (Step 1), the Office must then determine the two-prong inquiry for Step 2A whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) (Step 2A Prong 1), and if so, whether the claim is integrated into a practical application of the exception (Step 2A Prong 2), and if so, re-evaluate whether the inventive concept is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field (Step 2B).
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1: statutory category
Independent claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claim 1 of the claimed invention is directed to a system, which is statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes), and the claim 16 of the claimed invention is directed to a machine, which is statutory category of invention (Step 1: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes). The abstract idea falls under “Mental Processes” Grouping. The independent claim and the other claims recite method for storing characteristic failure thresholds, detecting a secondary vehicle, detecting a characteristic, determining if the detected characteristics exceeds the characteristic failure threshold, identifying the secondary vehicle as having detected failure as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “by the processing device”. That is, other than reciting “by the processing device” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the “by the processing device” language, the claim encompasses a person looking or using a pen and paper at data collected and forming a simple judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a processing device does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Step 2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes).
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong 2: Practical Application
The claim recites additional elements for storing characteristic failure thresholds, detecting a secondary vehicle, detecting a characteristic, determining if the detected characteristics exceeds the characteristic failure threshold, identifying the secondary vehicle as having detected failure as recited in independent claims 1 and 16. The storing, detecting, detecting, determining, and identifying are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for use in the identifying step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The identifying step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting result from the determining step), and amounts to mere post solution outputting, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “identifying” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose detecting environment. The detecting and determining are recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the identifying step.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (Step 2A—Prong 2: Practical Application?: No)
101 Analysis – Step 2B: Inventive Concept
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the performing and identifying steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that perception, localization, behaviors, planning and control of vehicles are well known [0002]. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim is ineligible (Step 2B: Inventive Concept?: No).
Analysis for Dependent Claims 2-15, and 17-20:
Step 1: Determining if the claim(s) are directed a statutory class of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Claims 2-15 are directed to “a system”. The claims are directed to a machine, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Claims 17-20 are directed to “a method”. The claims are directed to a process, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: yes)
Step 2A Prong One: Determining if the claim(s) recite a judicial exception (e.g., mathematical concepts, mental processes, certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic practices, and “an idea ‘of itself’”.
Claims 2-15 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-15 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Claims 17-20 recite additional limitations directed to a mental process. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 16 applies. Claims 17-20 are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two: Determining if additional limitations within the claim(s) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 2-15 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 1 applies. Claims 2-15 are not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 17-20 recite additional limitations, which viewed both individually and in combination, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The same analysis of Step 2A Prong One for claim 16 applies. Claims 17-20 are not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B: Determining if the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements in claims 2-15 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 2-15 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements in claims 17-20 fail to recite any additional elements, viewed both individually and as a whole, that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The same analysis applies in this step 2B as discussed in Step 2A Prong Two (see independent and dependent claim analysis). Claims 17-20 fail to claim anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion:
Dependent claims 2-15, and 17-20 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Accordingly, claims 2-15, and 17-20 are not patent eligible. Overall, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter and are not patent eligible.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of Oe et al., US 2019/0164267 A1 teaches a failed vehicle estimation system that includes an processor configured to: store vehicle information including vehicle ID information and positional information of the vehicles and failure information of a failed vehicle or at least one image obtained by imaging an outside of the vehicles with a camera mounted in each of the vehicles, the failure information being obtained from at least one specific image; specify at least one specific vehicle existing on a periphery of a mounting position of a specific camera having captured the at least one specific image from which the failure information of the failed vehicle is obtained; estimate the failed vehicle from among the at least one specific vehicle; and notify a terminal apparatus associated with the failed vehicle of information relating to a vehicle failure.
In regarding to independent claims 1 and 16, Oe taken either individually or in combination with other prior art of record fails to teach or render obvious a system and method for storing characteristic failure thresholds in a database; detecting a secondary vehicle around a primary vehicle with one or more sensors associated with the vehicle; detecting a characteristic associated with the secondary vehicle with the one or more sensors; determining if the detected characteristic associated with the secondary vehicle meets or exceeds the characteristic failure threshold corresponding with the
characteristic; and if the detected characteristic exceeds the characteristic failure threshold corresponding with the characteristic, identifying the secondary vehicle as having a detected failure.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Examiner’s Request
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support must be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, the applicant is requested to indicate support for amended claim language and newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). (MPEP 2163 I. B. New or Amended Claims). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUEN WONG whose telephone number is (313)446-4851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5:30 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Faris Almatrahi, can be reached on (313)446-4821. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUEN WONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights